Province of North Cotabato vs.

Government of the Republic of the Philippines

Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP)
October 14, 2008
Petitioners: The Province of North Cotabato, represented by Gov. Jesus
Sacdalan, Vice Governor Emmanuel Piol (GR. 183591); City Government of
Zamboanga, represented by Hon. Celso L. Lobregat, Rep. Ma. Isabelle G.
Climaco, Rep. Erico Basilio A. Fabian (GR. 183752); City of Iligan,
represented by Mayor Lawrence Lluch Cruz (GR. 183893); Province of
Zamboanga Del Norte, represented by Gov. Rolando E. Yebes, et al. (GR.
183951); Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar C. Binay, and Aquilino L. Pimentel III
(GR. 183952).
Respondents: GRP Peace Panel, represented by Sec. Rodolfo Garcia, et al.;
and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front represented by Mohagher Iqbal.

Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales as the ponente.

Facts:
The formal signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral
Domain (MOA-AD) by the GRP and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF) was scheduled on August 05, 2008 in Malaysia. The Court, however,
upon motion of petitioners herein, issued a Temporary Restraining Order
precluding respondents from formally signing the said agreement.
The MOA-AD is supposed to be a part of the peace negotiation process
between the GRP and MILF. On July 18,1997 the parties signed the
Agreement on General Cessation of Hostilities; this was followed by the
General Framework of Agreement of Intent (August 27, 1998). The
negotiations, however, stopped in 2001 after a livid President Joseph Estrada
called an all-out-war as a response to a series of MILF-inspired attacks in
Central Mindanao. During the first months of President Gloria MacapagalArroyos assumption to office, the parties signed the General Framework for

the Resumption of Peace Talks Between the GRP 1 and MILF, followed by the
GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement).2 The latter
agreement contained basic principles and agenda on (1) Security Aspect,
(2) Rehabilitation Aspect, and (3) Ancestral Domain Aspect. The first two
aspects were implemented in the succeeding peace talks. 3 The last aspect
would have been effectuated, as agreed upon, by the MOA-AD until the Court
issued an injunction and put MOA-AD under the crucible of constitutionality.
The MOA-AD defined the Bangsamoro people as the original inhabitants of
Mindanao and adjacent areas at the time of conquest or colonization. This
definition extends to these natives descendants and, of course, by its broad
language, includes the indigenous people of Mindanao. It referred to the
Bangsamoro homeland as its ancestral domain embracing the entire
Mindanao-Palawan-Sulu region area including the waters surrounding it;
and is removed from public domain. The agreement also described the
associative relationship of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) with the
Philippine Government and their rights and dutiesconsensus points.
These are all before the Court in the petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and
Mandamus challenging the constitutionality, and hence the validity of the
MOA-AD.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the petitions have become moot and academic.
2. Whether or not the Court can properly exercise its power of judicial
review.
3. Whether or not the MOA-AD violates the Constitution and laws.
Ruling:
Moot and Academic
Signed on March 21, 2001.
Signed on June 20-22, 2001 in Tripoli, Libya).
3
Implementing Guidelines on the Security Aspect (August 5-7, 2001) and the
Implementing Guidelines on the Humanitarian Rehabilitation and Development
(May 7, 2002).
1
2

The Court ruled that the petitions with regard to the certiorari and
prohibition, have not become moot and academic merely because of the
Executive Departments dissolution of the peace panel and its solemn
declaration that it would not sign the MOA-AD whatever may be the decision
of the case. The Court noted that the MOA-AD is a part of a series of prior
agreements (and if upheld, of further agreements) that is imbued with public
interest. Certainly, the government will hold further discussions with the
MILF and other rebel groups for peace negotiations. It is in this regard that
the Court deemed it proper (and imperative) to issue controlling principles to
guide the President as well as the bench, the bar, and public on the extent
and limits the Chief Executives peace negotiation powers.
Meanwhile, in view of respondents unconditional submission of copies of the
MOA-AD, the petition for mandamus has been rendered moot.
Ripe for Judicial Adjudication
The Court ignored the Solicitor Generals assertion that there is no dispute to
resolve because the MOA-AD only contained consensus points subject for
further negotiations and legislative enactments, that the agreement
contained therein is of preliminary character, and that there are no
concrete acts that could have, or will, injure petitioners. It is sufficient in this
case, the Court said, that the challenged agreement, with the attendant acts
and omissions allegedly resulting from grave abuse of discretion, is prima
facie unconstitutional.
Standing
The Court relaxed procedural rule on locus standi, the case, being of
paramount public interest or of transcendental importance. As adverted, the
Court resolved to issue controlling principles because of the seriousness and
novelty of the issues presented.

Nonetheless, the Court found that petitioners in G.R. 183591, 183752,

183893, and 183951, being local government units (LGUs), 4 to have standing
to sue as they would sustain substantial injury with their territories proposed
to be included in the BJE. In G.R. 183962, Messrs. Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar
Binay, and Aquilino Pimentel III have been granted standing as they invoked
the transcendental importance of the case.
Right of the People on Matters of Public Concern
The MOA-AD is undoubtedly a matter of public concern as it deals with the
sovereignty and territory of the Philippines. Thus, as an issue of public
concern (and indeed of paramount public interest), the people should have
been informed and consulted on matters relating to the peace process prior,
and not subsequent, to their execution pursuant to the peoples right to
information5 and the States correlative duty on public dissemination. 6
Executive Order No. 3 also provides for the duty of the Presidential Adviser
on the Peace Process (PAPP) to conduct regular dialogues to stakeholders on
the peace process. The Court saw that the PAPP failed to carry out this
mandate of the said order and adjudged it to be a grave abuse of discretion.
What is more, the Local Government Code has tasked all government
authorities to conduct consultations in localities before implementing
programs and projects that are critical to the environment and human
ecology. These mechanisms are also wanting in the road leading to the
MOA-AD. As to the indigenous cultural communities and indigenous people
(ICC/IP), the GRP cannot unilaterally delineate and recognize claims on
ancestral domain without informing the former. It is incumbent upon the
GRP to observe the mechanisms clearly stated in the law. 7
Concept of Association
The LGUs are the following: Provinces of North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, and
Zamboanga Del Norte; Cities of Iligan, Isabela, and Zamboanga; and the
Municipality of Linamon.
5
CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 7.
6
CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 28.
7
Republic Act No. 8371 or The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997.
4

Associative relationship between the Philippine Government and the BJE, as

explicitly stated in the MOA-AD, is not recognized by the Constitution. The
fundamental law contemplates only of one state and that is the Republic of
the Philippines. By contrast, an associative relationship envisages of two
states of unequal power where the principal state takes on a delegated
responsibility by the associate state without the loss of the latters status as a
state in the international community.
The BJE has the characteristics of a state under the Montevideo Convention,
namely: permanent population, defined territory, a government, and capacity
to enter into relations with other states. Being so, a number of provisions in
the MOA-AD unsurprisingly contradict, as the Court explained, with the
Constitution and laws.
For example, Article X, Section 18 of the Constitution provides for the
creation of an autonomous region [which] shall be effective [upon approval of
the majority] of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called
for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities, and geographic areas
voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous
region. The MOA-AD, on the other hand, has already proclaimed for itself,
and the GRP willingly conceded, the current component of ARMM to be part
of the core BJE.
In addition, Section 20 of the same article also specified the legislative powers
conferred upon the autonomous regions. This has, on the premise of MOAAD, to be amended in order to give way to its sweeping declaration of
[building, developing, and maintaining] its own institutions and its
empowering state-characteristics.
The suspensive clause of MOA-AD claiming the provisions contrary to the
Constitution and the laws shall not come into force upon signing of a
Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting the necessary changes to the
legal framework provides no relief because it goes on to state that such
changes shall be with due regard to non-derogation of prior agreements and
within the stipulated timeframe to be contained in the Comprehensive

Compact. Thus, upon signing of the Comprehensive Compact, the GRP

already has a mandatory obligation to effect changes in the Constitution and
laws, the MOA-AD forming part of the prior agreement.
As Chief Executive, she is the sole organ and authority in external relations
and the countrys representative with foreign nations. Even so, in negotiating
for national policies, her power is tempered by the specific injunctions of the
Constitution. However, the President, any more than the GRP Peace Panel,
cannot guarantee future amendments to the existing legal framework as
constituent powers is vested in the Legislature, a Constitutional Convention,
and the people through initiative.
The MOA-AD is also not an international agreement or a unilateral
declaration that would bind the country and subject it to international law.
There is no clear intention for the Philippines, in drafting the MOA-AD, to be
bound by it to the international community or to any state.
Conclusion:
The petitions are granted. The MOA-AD is contrary to law and the
Constitution.